|
>
>>*Can play degrees of emotions.
>
>Everyone should have these, albeit they express those emotions
>in their own way.
Emphasis on SHOULD. Emotional nuance is NOT something often seen in performances. Most examples of emotional nuance in film come from great actors. Gabriel Byrne delivers amazing emotional nuance - DEAD MAN and MILLER'S CROSSING are great examples.
>>*Rage and range.
>
>I don't know that rage is necessarily important. I haven't
>seen a number of my favorite actresses express rage, in
>particular.
Maybe "rage" isn't the right word. It's something of an intangible, when an actor can - how to put it? - curse the heavens and elicit a response.
There's a few female actors from the heyday that could do it, Betty Davis first springs to mind. As for actors of today, Julianne Moore can do this, Jude Law too. Gary Oldman all but made a career out of it. Ben Kingsley is probably the best at it (among living, working actors).
It's a skill I don't find as necessary to be great in film actors as I do in stage actors. But it's a skill that immediately puts you on that level.
>Range is important to some degree, but if someone
>becomes a big star, they don't get to showcase their range
>anymore, so the roles for famous people dictate the ability to
>display range to some degree.
Three things, in ascending order:
One; you know as well as I do being a big star doesn't mean you're a great actor.
Two: I've seen more of George Clooney's range since he became a star. Same with Bruce Willis, Tom Hanks, Nicole Kidman, a bunch of others. Some movie stars do use their clout to not get boxed in.
Three: That said, when I said "range" I was referring to range within a scene; actors who don't get stuck on one note from beginning to end. The movie SLEUTH (the original) is a great example of this. Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine trade off so much, you'd think it's dueling solos between Charlie Parker and Lester Young. MYSTIC RIVER is an even better example. Even the scenes between Fishburne and Bacon showcase two actors doing different stuff emotionally (albeit small), and their scenes together are probably the most forgettable of the unforgettable film.
>>*Elevates scenes.
>
>Sure. But again, if a scene is stagnant, either the editors
>did a rough job or this movie isn't of professional quality
>across the board.
Perhaps it's an editor's success - the first time. But if every time you see Dustin Hoffman he does something interesting; or Denzel Washington doing something brand new in take 12 - and they didn't even use take 12; or Paul Newman does nothing yet you still can't pull away from him, that's not the editor. That's a great actor.
>>*Lose their self in the performance.
>
>Sure. But you don't see most actors breaking character, so
>this one should be standard for all actors.
Playing the part and losing yourself in the part are two very different things. You look at Jamie Foxx in RAY long enough, deep enough, you'll see Jamie Foxx. You look at Denzel Washington in MALCOLM X long enough, deep enough, you'll only see Malcolm X. And that's why one of them is a great actor.
>>*Doesn't get blown away by Robert De Niro.
>
>Methinks you included this primarily for Liotta. 
The Wordman's got jokes.
>I think anyone who can hang with any actor who is consider an
>"all-time great" deserves praise.
A fellow actor and I have a long ongoing discussion about this. We equate the above described phenomena to a sixth-ranked boxer who can't beat boxers ranked 2 through 5, but is somehow able to beat the champ every time. You don't know how, you don't why - the actor doesn't even know why - but they just have that one guy's number.
>Viola Davis with Meryl
>Streep in Doubt is a recent example.
I put my word on this: Viola Davis could act circles around Meryl Streep.
I love Meryl Streep. As an actor, you're legally required to. But Viola can BREATHE in waters Meryl can't swim in.
It's just my opinion, with little to support it. But I will say this, Meryl gets nominated for Oscars based on her name. Viola gets nominated based on a monologue.
>>*Screen presence.
>>*Years.
>>*Level of quality over those years.
>
>Well, again, the third quality there is somewhat determined by
>the quality of roles and script selection.
Not "quality of films," but level of quality, as in, "the level of quality of their work over years;" or, "how good are they and how well have they maintained or increased their performance level over the years?" It's why De Niro is a great actor without having done any great acting since - God, how long has it been? Or why Jack Lemmon was a great actor throughout his career.
>>*Doesn't drown.
>
>Guess Natalie Wood isn't a great actress. :-\
Damn, didn't even think of that. "Doesn't drown in the performance." You've seen actors drown mid-performance. It's painful, it's sad, but it happens. We jokingly refer to it as "that '90s John Cusack style of acting." For some reason, the actor just starts tuning out. I've got a whole theory behind actors who drown in performance.
...I should also probably state for the record that I really like Natalie Wood.
>>*Can perform at a level that is higher than others.
>
>Again, it's nearly impossible to compare this. DeNiro, Liotta,
>Grillo, Whigham, Toby Jones, DiCaprio... they're all so
>DIFFERENT. Liotta can do a Liotta role better than Whigham,
>but Whigham can do a Whigham role better than Liotta.
It's not the easiest thing to gauge, and more arbitrary than the rest of the "off the top of my head" criteria, but it does work.
Example:
Meryl Streep vs. Glenn Close.
They're not terribly different (I'm not convinced on actors being all that different. Obvoiusly each one is a beautiful and unique snowflake, particularly the great ones, but at the end of the day it's a game of degrees, they're all the same thing - a snowflake).
They both play similar roles, can do similar things as actors. But Ms. Close's scripts have Ms. Streep's fingerprints. Know why? Because if you want the one who delivers more/better/"whatever positive-increasing adverb you want to use," you go with Meryl Streep.
That's why Glenn Close wishes she was in THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA but is in 101 DALMATIONS.
Comparing great is a game of spoils, to be sure. Michael Jordan beating Magic Johnson is still Magic Johnson playing. But the construct still works as well as it does when Michael Jordan beats Samuel Dalembert - or in this case, Meryl Streep vs. Sandra Bullock.
"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Pass The Popcorn
